I just got back from a 2 week vacation, and Fishers residents and prominent Republican office-holders Art and Judy Levine have announced that they are leaving Fishers, resigning their respective offices, and moving to California. Art Levine is a member of the Fishers Town Council and Judy is a member, and former President, of the Hamilton County Council.
Art and I have always gotten along pretty well, even though we were election opponents in 2007. Art survived a nasty Republican primary where a lot of unpleasant things were said about him personally by members of his own party, and he seemed grateful that I did not campaign that way, but stayed issue-oriented. We have always seemed to communicate well, even when we disagreed on policy.
Likewise, I always have gotten along with Judy Levine, whom Art describes as "the politician in the family". Judy is a very pleasant and sharp person, and an astute politician. With both of them, we had our disagreements about national and state policy, but often found common ground on local issues... but not always. But it was never, EVER, personal.
The Levines have been a fixture locally for many years, and they will be missed.
But their departure leaves a power vacuum. Under Indiana law, the Republican precinct committeepersons must meet in caucus to select Art and Judy's replacements for the balance of their term. Art's term on the Fishers Town Council ends at the close of 2011, but Judy was just re-elected last year to a 4-year term, so her term would end at the close of 2014.
A number of names have been swatted around for Judy's seat, but no caucus has yet been set, so it may be premature to speculate on who might come out of that process. Art's town council seat is another matter. The current map of District Four is different than when Art won in 2007. Based on the process that was used to select Mike Colby to replace Charlie White last fall, the person would have to live in the OLD boundaries of District Four. So far, no one has come forth and made an announcement that they would seek to fill the remaining few months in Art's term, possibly because that person would not also be on the November ballot.
I of course am a candidate for the District Four seat in November (www.Purvis4Fishers.com), but since I am not of the same political party, I am very unlikely to be selected for the interim seat. But whomever is selected will have a chance to make some important decisions about local issues without worrying about political pressures or re-election. And that could be the most significant part of this whole process.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Is Fishers For Sale?
Ever wonder where all the money comes from to pay for the thousands of signs of current Fishers Town Council members? This year it's easy to explain. It comes from companies and law firms who do business with the town.
One way that some candidates avoid a lot of public scrutiny about where their campaign funds come from is to use one or more Political Action Committees (PACs) to funnel contributions through. For example, if an officeholder wants to avoid being seen in the pocket of special interests, he or she sets up one or more PACs to accept contributions. After all, when you file a campaign finance report, a contribution from "ABC PAC" seems a lot more innocent than a bunch of money from "Big Developer" who does a lot of business with that officeholder's government.
Nowhere is this practice more common than in Fishers, Indiana, where the incumbent members of the Town Council have a long history of such PACs. A couple of examples are the "Good Government for Fishers PAC" and the "Future of Fishers PAC", both of which have accepted and handed out tens of thousands of dollars in contributions. But the funny thing is, both of those PACs share a common mailing address, which just happens to be the home of council incumbent Eileen Pritchard.
And if you look at the current campaign finance reports posted on the Hamilton County website (http://www.hamiltoncounty.in.gov/publicdocs/Campaign%20Finance%20Images/defaultlist.asp?ARG1=/Campaign%20Finance%20Images), some disturbing facts emerge. Lets take a look at some of those huge contributions, and who they are from.
Relatively few individuals who live in Fishers and who do NOT have "insider" ties to the current Town Council seem to be contributors. A list of the insiders, their ties, and their contributions, would be a whole new column. In fact, the only contributor this period to Council President Scott Faultless' campaign committee is Future of Fishers PAC, over $17,000.
So, the question naturally comes, "IS FISHERS FOR SALE?" to these special interests, who in many cases have been enriched by actions of the Town Council, and naturally, would love to keep the cash flowing in. There is nothing OVERTLY illegal about this, however, unless it could be proven that there is a quid pro quo, an agreement to vote a certain way in return for a campaign contribution, or so-called "Pay to Play" politics.
But, the Town Council is playing with TAXPAYER DOLLARS, not their own, although they sometimes act as if local government were their personal toy. But for the first time in memory, nearly all of the incumbents are being challenged. Each of the persons I have named is being challenged in the Republican primary on May 3rd. If you are a Fishers voter, and intend to vote in the Republican primary, you might want to stop and consider if this is what you want, or not, for the future of Fishers.
[The author is a candidate for Fishers Town Council in District 4. Unopposed in the primary, he is a November election candidate who is NOT running against a council incumbent. For more information, go to www.Purvis4Fishers.com.]
One way that some candidates avoid a lot of public scrutiny about where their campaign funds come from is to use one or more Political Action Committees (PACs) to funnel contributions through. For example, if an officeholder wants to avoid being seen in the pocket of special interests, he or she sets up one or more PACs to accept contributions. After all, when you file a campaign finance report, a contribution from "ABC PAC" seems a lot more innocent than a bunch of money from "Big Developer" who does a lot of business with that officeholder's government.
Nowhere is this practice more common than in Fishers, Indiana, where the incumbent members of the Town Council have a long history of such PACs. A couple of examples are the "Good Government for Fishers PAC" and the "Future of Fishers PAC", both of which have accepted and handed out tens of thousands of dollars in contributions. But the funny thing is, both of those PACs share a common mailing address, which just happens to be the home of council incumbent Eileen Pritchard.
And if you look at the current campaign finance reports posted on the Hamilton County website (http://www.hamiltoncounty.in.gov/publicdocs/Campaign%20Finance%20Images/defaultlist.asp?ARG1=/Campaign%20Finance%20Images), some disturbing facts emerge. Lets take a look at some of those huge contributions, and who they are from.
- SAMCO, $10,000. SAMCO is the operations affiliate of HSE Utilities, the sewer utility for over half of Fishers.
- Baker and Daniels, $10,000. B&D is a large law firm which has been paid large sums for legal work for the Town Council.
- Bose McKinney & Evans, $5000. Another large law firm with ties to the Town Council.
- Barnes &Thornburg, $3500. Another large law firm that the Town Council paid $126,500.00 last year in fees.
- Church, Church, Hittle and Antrim, $2500. The law firm headed by Doug Church, the Town Attorney, who has also gotten involved in local political conflict before, and who has been infamously quoted as referring to Fishers' voters as the "little people". They were paid $120,000 last year by the Town Council.
- Assorted other realtors, developers, and engineers with ties to local government.
Relatively few individuals who live in Fishers and who do NOT have "insider" ties to the current Town Council seem to be contributors. A list of the insiders, their ties, and their contributions, would be a whole new column. In fact, the only contributor this period to Council President Scott Faultless' campaign committee is Future of Fishers PAC, over $17,000.
So, the question naturally comes, "IS FISHERS FOR SALE?" to these special interests, who in many cases have been enriched by actions of the Town Council, and naturally, would love to keep the cash flowing in. There is nothing OVERTLY illegal about this, however, unless it could be proven that there is a quid pro quo, an agreement to vote a certain way in return for a campaign contribution, or so-called "Pay to Play" politics.
But, the Town Council is playing with TAXPAYER DOLLARS, not their own, although they sometimes act as if local government were their personal toy. But for the first time in memory, nearly all of the incumbents are being challenged. Each of the persons I have named is being challenged in the Republican primary on May 3rd. If you are a Fishers voter, and intend to vote in the Republican primary, you might want to stop and consider if this is what you want, or not, for the future of Fishers.
[The author is a candidate for Fishers Town Council in District 4. Unopposed in the primary, he is a November election candidate who is NOT running against a council incumbent. For more information, go to www.Purvis4Fishers.com.]
Saturday, February 12, 2011
The line is growing
Fishers Town Council President Scott Faultless is famous for saying that they must be doing a good job, otherwise people would be lining up to run against them. I wonder if he would claim that now. With a week to go in filing for town office, every incumbent Town Council member seeking re-election, except one, has an opponent, and the long-time incumbent Clerk-Treasurer does as well. (An editorial note here, I am a candidate, but will not be facing an incumbent.)
This is very uncommon for a community that seldom has seen a contested primary or general election for town office. It certainly has not happened on this scale for a long time. As noted in a prior post, the current Town Council seems to have gone out of their way in the last four years to make political enemies.
And complicating the issue is the odd way Fishers sets up its council districts. Fishers has seven districts, and council candidates have to live in a district, and only one per district is elected. BUT, contrary to just about every other large city, all seven districts are voted on by ALL the voters of the community, as if they were at-large.
Normally, this would discourage challengers. Who wants to run from a community of 77,000+ as opposed to about 11,000 in a district, and run against an incumbent on top of it? That sounds formidable. But making people mad is a good way to motivate them to vote. And angry voters not only turn out, they vote for change.
This is bad news for incumbents. One incumbent actually has two primary challengers. And with two seats with no incumbent running, there is certain to be some change in Fishers. Time will tell how that all works out.
But in the meantime, the line is growing against the anti-democratic incumbents. Perhaps Faultless is a prophet, just not the way he intended.
This is very uncommon for a community that seldom has seen a contested primary or general election for town office. It certainly has not happened on this scale for a long time. As noted in a prior post, the current Town Council seems to have gone out of their way in the last four years to make political enemies.
And complicating the issue is the odd way Fishers sets up its council districts. Fishers has seven districts, and council candidates have to live in a district, and only one per district is elected. BUT, contrary to just about every other large city, all seven districts are voted on by ALL the voters of the community, as if they were at-large.
Normally, this would discourage challengers. Who wants to run from a community of 77,000+ as opposed to about 11,000 in a district, and run against an incumbent on top of it? That sounds formidable. But making people mad is a good way to motivate them to vote. And angry voters not only turn out, they vote for change.
This is bad news for incumbents. One incumbent actually has two primary challengers. And with two seats with no incumbent running, there is certain to be some change in Fishers. Time will tell how that all works out.
But in the meantime, the line is growing against the anti-democratic incumbents. Perhaps Faultless is a prophet, just not the way he intended.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Greg Purvis for Fishers Town Council
I have officially filed my candidacy for Fishers Town Council in District 4. While Fishers has 7 council districts, they embrace the odd system of allowing all registered voters in Fishers vote for all 7 districts. I have often criticised this system, calling for a traditional city system where some seats are pure districts and some at large.
I have for several years been active in community affairs in Fishers, being a member of the board of directors of my homeowners association, being a charter member of the Kiwanis Club of Geist, and being politically active and outspoken. I have attended numerous Town Council meetings, township board meetings, and others, including the City-Town Study Committee, where I was an active member in 2009.
Among other things, my strongest belief is that Fishers should be a real City, with a City form of government such as that which all other Indiana communities possess, with a Mayor elected by the people, and a city council with real districts. I first called for Fishers to change to a City in January 2007. I continued that move with the founding of CityYes, founded by citizens of all political persuasions who joined together in their common belief that becoming a City is best for the future of Fishers. I was privileged to be CityYes' first chairman, a post I held until July 2010. I submitted the names of 1700 registered voters of Fishers to the Town Council in May 2010, asking for a November 2010 referendum on the city-town question, but the Town Council ignored their legal duty to certify the question and still have not done so.
I have often called for more open, transparent and responsive government in Fishers, a government not easily accountable to the voters in its current form. When I found that former Town Council member Charlie White had moved out of his district, an act by which he forfeited office when it happened, and had illegally continued to act as a Town Council member, I conducted my own investigation, held a news conference, and forced his resignation. As it appeared to me that White had also committed voter fraud as part of his cover-up, I met my legal duty as an attorney, by reporting the facts I had found to the Prosecutor's Office, and asked that a special prosecutor be appointed and a Grand Jury convened. Two special prosecutors were appointed, and I understand that a Grand Jury may be held in February.
Further, I have often appeared at Town Council meetings and questioned their spending and other actions. Fully 15% of the 2010 Fishers budget went to debt service, which is cause for concern. I have also questioned the council's willingness to pledge public money, often in the form of TIF districts, to projects that ultimately do not get off the ground. I pledge to be prudent and careful in spending tax dollars, and to try to limit debt being incurred by Fishers. I would also have a higher threshold for pledging public money to private business ventures, without some high degree of expectation both of success and of public benefit.
My election to the Town Council will bring an honest outsider's voice and new blood to the Town Council. I ask for the support of all Fishers residents who are concerned for the future of this community. Please visit my website at http://www.purvis4fishers.com/ to learn more, volunteer, or make a contribution.
Greg Purvis
I have for several years been active in community affairs in Fishers, being a member of the board of directors of my homeowners association, being a charter member of the Kiwanis Club of Geist, and being politically active and outspoken. I have attended numerous Town Council meetings, township board meetings, and others, including the City-Town Study Committee, where I was an active member in 2009.
Among other things, my strongest belief is that Fishers should be a real City, with a City form of government such as that which all other Indiana communities possess, with a Mayor elected by the people, and a city council with real districts. I first called for Fishers to change to a City in January 2007. I continued that move with the founding of CityYes, founded by citizens of all political persuasions who joined together in their common belief that becoming a City is best for the future of Fishers. I was privileged to be CityYes' first chairman, a post I held until July 2010. I submitted the names of 1700 registered voters of Fishers to the Town Council in May 2010, asking for a November 2010 referendum on the city-town question, but the Town Council ignored their legal duty to certify the question and still have not done so.
I have often called for more open, transparent and responsive government in Fishers, a government not easily accountable to the voters in its current form. When I found that former Town Council member Charlie White had moved out of his district, an act by which he forfeited office when it happened, and had illegally continued to act as a Town Council member, I conducted my own investigation, held a news conference, and forced his resignation. As it appeared to me that White had also committed voter fraud as part of his cover-up, I met my legal duty as an attorney, by reporting the facts I had found to the Prosecutor's Office, and asked that a special prosecutor be appointed and a Grand Jury convened. Two special prosecutors were appointed, and I understand that a Grand Jury may be held in February.
Further, I have often appeared at Town Council meetings and questioned their spending and other actions. Fully 15% of the 2010 Fishers budget went to debt service, which is cause for concern. I have also questioned the council's willingness to pledge public money, often in the form of TIF districts, to projects that ultimately do not get off the ground. I pledge to be prudent and careful in spending tax dollars, and to try to limit debt being incurred by Fishers. I would also have a higher threshold for pledging public money to private business ventures, without some high degree of expectation both of success and of public benefit.
My election to the Town Council will bring an honest outsider's voice and new blood to the Town Council. I ask for the support of all Fishers residents who are concerned for the future of this community. Please visit my website at http://www.purvis4fishers.com/ to learn more, volunteer, or make a contribution.
Greg Purvis
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
The Making of Enemies
This is a commentary about the Fishers Town Council, and how they seem to be generating, not just political opponents, but political enemies. I draw a fairly sharp distinction between the two. An "opponent" by my way of thinking, is someone with whom you have a reasonable, and respectful, difference of opinion. An "enemy" by contrast, has gone beyond mere opposition, and is characterized by a determination to overcome the other side.
I think I have tended to be an "opponent" of much, but not all, that the Fishers Town Council has done and stands for. As an example, I tend to be wary of throwing tax incentives and other taxpayer dollars (such as TIF districts) at future developments without some pretty firm evidence that the development is a "good thing" and will generate positive dollars for the community. After all, it IS the taxpayer's money. In this, I tend to differ in degree from the majority of the Town Council, but at least two members of the Council have recently shown a willingness to dissent somewhat along my lines of thinking.
But the Town Council has so angered some people, over some issues, that they have made, and are making, rank enemies, not just opponents. Indeed, many if not most of these enemies are within the ranks of the Republican Party, in areas which vote heavily Republican. The first sign of this was when Scott Faultless backed a young challenger to council incumbent Art Levine in the 2007 Republican Primary, a primary fight which was surprisingly bitter. Perhaps this cowed Mr. Levine, but he seems to follow the lead of Mr. Faultless since then.
About the same time, the Battle of Geist was happening. An area heavily Republican and well-to-do, they were angered by the Council's blunt determination to forcibly annex them, a process over which Geist residents had little say. The annexation went thru, and now those folks are Fishers voters. They believe, with some merit, that their taxes will rise, and for little or no additional services. Geist residents felt, and still feel, that they were wantonly put upon by the Town Council members, none of whom they could vote for ... then. By the Geist belief, it was all about their taxes, period, which the Council coveted to cover a rising amount of bond debt. They felt lied about, and lied to. Many of them have become hardened opponents of the current Council, when they could have been allies.
But it seems the Town Council did not learn. They are now proposing a "merger" with Fall Creek Township (the eastern part of Fishers and adjacent unincorporated area) which would eliminate township government (which is independently elected), give the township's tax money to Fishers, and in one stroke, incorporate ALL of the unincorporated area into Fishers. Needless to say, many residents in the unincorporated area, who see no need for any of this, are not too pleased. The large majority of those people are Republicans. Of the 3 township appointees to the merger study committee, 2 voted against the merger plan.
The merger is up for public hearing on November 29, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. at Hamilton Southeastern High School. http://www.fishers.in.us/egov/docs/1290187430_1063.htm I urge all interested citizens to attend.
Another way the merger has angered people, is that there is already a pending legal petition signed by 1700 Fishers voters to have a referendum on changing Fishers from a town form of government to a city. The Town Council has refused to even discuss having this referendum, even tho they were legally required to approve it. The CityYes committee which submitted it asked that it be set for a vote on November 2, 2010, which obviously has passed. They show no signs of EVER letting it be voted on. Indeed, this has led to speculation that the merger is just a way to try to prevent the "city-town" referendum and keep the same form of government, without an elected mayor, and other changes.
Isn't this the height of political arrogance? Has the Town Council forgotten that they are supposed to be the servants of the community, and not its masters? Do they fear a public vote that much? For better or worse, the people have ultimate power, and right, to determine their own form of government. And that sort of arrogance makes people angry, and turns them into enemies, not just opponents.
I think I have tended to be an "opponent" of much, but not all, that the Fishers Town Council has done and stands for. As an example, I tend to be wary of throwing tax incentives and other taxpayer dollars (such as TIF districts) at future developments without some pretty firm evidence that the development is a "good thing" and will generate positive dollars for the community. After all, it IS the taxpayer's money. In this, I tend to differ in degree from the majority of the Town Council, but at least two members of the Council have recently shown a willingness to dissent somewhat along my lines of thinking.
But the Town Council has so angered some people, over some issues, that they have made, and are making, rank enemies, not just opponents. Indeed, many if not most of these enemies are within the ranks of the Republican Party, in areas which vote heavily Republican. The first sign of this was when Scott Faultless backed a young challenger to council incumbent Art Levine in the 2007 Republican Primary, a primary fight which was surprisingly bitter. Perhaps this cowed Mr. Levine, but he seems to follow the lead of Mr. Faultless since then.
About the same time, the Battle of Geist was happening. An area heavily Republican and well-to-do, they were angered by the Council's blunt determination to forcibly annex them, a process over which Geist residents had little say. The annexation went thru, and now those folks are Fishers voters. They believe, with some merit, that their taxes will rise, and for little or no additional services. Geist residents felt, and still feel, that they were wantonly put upon by the Town Council members, none of whom they could vote for ... then. By the Geist belief, it was all about their taxes, period, which the Council coveted to cover a rising amount of bond debt. They felt lied about, and lied to. Many of them have become hardened opponents of the current Council, when they could have been allies.
But it seems the Town Council did not learn. They are now proposing a "merger" with Fall Creek Township (the eastern part of Fishers and adjacent unincorporated area) which would eliminate township government (which is independently elected), give the township's tax money to Fishers, and in one stroke, incorporate ALL of the unincorporated area into Fishers. Needless to say, many residents in the unincorporated area, who see no need for any of this, are not too pleased. The large majority of those people are Republicans. Of the 3 township appointees to the merger study committee, 2 voted against the merger plan.
The merger is up for public hearing on November 29, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. at Hamilton Southeastern High School. http://www.fishers.in.us/egov/docs/1290187430_1063.htm I urge all interested citizens to attend.
Another way the merger has angered people, is that there is already a pending legal petition signed by 1700 Fishers voters to have a referendum on changing Fishers from a town form of government to a city. The Town Council has refused to even discuss having this referendum, even tho they were legally required to approve it. The CityYes committee which submitted it asked that it be set for a vote on November 2, 2010, which obviously has passed. They show no signs of EVER letting it be voted on. Indeed, this has led to speculation that the merger is just a way to try to prevent the "city-town" referendum and keep the same form of government, without an elected mayor, and other changes.
Isn't this the height of political arrogance? Has the Town Council forgotten that they are supposed to be the servants of the community, and not its masters? Do they fear a public vote that much? For better or worse, the people have ultimate power, and right, to determine their own form of government. And that sort of arrogance makes people angry, and turns them into enemies, not just opponents.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Knee-jerk politics
Election Day rolled around Tuesday and I spent all day in and out of the polls. I spent a part of the day at a couple of Hamilton County polling places with Democratic Secretary of State candidate Vop Osili, you know, the guy with the funny name who also was endorsed by the FOP, firefighters, teachers, and most major newspapers. You know, the guy whose opponent couldn't seem to follow the very election laws he was trying to get elected to enforce.
People like Vop when they meet him. He is bright, engaging, smart, articulate, and has a brilliant smile and easy manner. So I was pleased when voters at strongly Republican precincts greeted him (mostly) with smiles and "pleased to meet you!" I thought maybe they really "got it" this time, and the polls and pundits were wrong.
Until we talked to a perky 20-ish blonde voter, who seemed delighted to meet a candidate. Then with a confused smile, she sheepishly asked if Vop were Democrat or Republican. When told Democrat, she got more confused. When further informed that Vop's opponent was under felony investigation for voter fraud, she looked even more confused, and said, "But he's a Republican, isn't he?" as if that excused everything. Stunned, we let her go on her confused path to the voting booth.
Sadly, that young woman actually turned out to be typical for Hamilton County. While Vop led the statewide candidates in Hamilton County, returns indicate the drop-off for White was small, perhaps 8%. I am still stunned that any informed, intelligent voter could or would vote for a potential felon to safeguard their elections, and that party label was all that mattered for far too many.
But conversely, I also spoke to many Republican precinct workers, probably the most involved people in their party, who did NOT vote for Charlie White, but voted for one of the other two candidates. They put principle and facts first, and should be commended. But they seem to be a tiny fraction of the whole.
Lest anyone think this is a partisan diatribe, Democrats, buckle your seatbelts, you get it next.
Some readers will already know the shameful story of the 5th District congressional race on the Democratic side in 2010. An intelligent, articulate physician by the name of Nasser Hanna, midwest born and raised, and a Fishers resident, was preparing for a mighty battle against Dan Burton. He raised money, criss-crossed the district many times, and made thousands of phone calls. But he had a primary opponent, Tim Crawford, who was in fact no Democrat, but a Republican poll worker and Tea Party member. Crawford raised no money, made no appearances prior to the primary. Crawford won, handily. His victory was attributed to ballot position and not-too-subtle racism. After the primary, Crawford's sole campaign appearance, with the Hamilton County Democratic Women, went so badly for Crawford that he briefly promised to resign, then backed off that, never to be seen or heard from again. Crawford remained on the ballot.
No Democratic leader that I know of would admit to voting for Crawford, and I certainly did not. But while Democrats had no GOOD choices, Crawford was certainly not our choice. Personally, I voted for the Libertarian candidate, feeling he was the only one in the race who actually had an intelligent thought. But rank and file Democrats in Hamilton County appear to have voted in lock-step for Crawford, as his vote totals were nearly identical to the base party vote. There was one exception. An unknown voter in my home precinct wrote in, "A Real Democrat please". Bless you my neighbor!
I cry SHAME! on any Republican who voted for Charlie White and SHAME! again for any Democrat who voted for Tim Crawford. You did not do your homework as voters. You voted for party label with no clue as to what the candidate stood for, or what baggage he carried. Those were ignorant, petty votes, and your party and your community will suffer for them. Voters simply must do a better job of educating themselves and voting intelligently. Party label is not enough, never has been, never will be.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Charlie White saga continues
Indianapolis TV station WRTV-6 is reporting that the Hamilton County Prosecutor WILL ask for the appointment of a special prosecutor in the Charlie White voter fraud investigation. The Channel 6 report is here: http://www.theindychannel.com/news/25230887/detail.html. As those who pay attention will note, I was the one who first called for this action, followed by Democratic State Chairman Dan Parker, and Democratic Secretary of State candidate Vop Osili.
Additionally, several people have asked to see the map that I used to illustrate just how far outside of his district Charlie moved, which also illustrates how far he had to go from his real home to vote in the May 2010 primary. Well, I only have it in PDF format, which I cannot figure out how to post here, and I don't know how to convert it, so unless someone can teach me how, you will just have to email me and ask for it.
Charlie is now doubtless going to have to hire a criminal defense attorney, and this will lead to a huge distraction from his race for Secretary of State. Also, the Town of Fishers is investigating the repercussions on its official actions.
Much as Charlie and the Republican Party would love for this to be "no big deal" and go away, it just is NOT going away, but seems to get more and more serious every day. I personally have spoken to many Republicans who will vote Democratic or Libertarian in order to show their distaste for Charlie's actions. Good for them. We don't need a law-breaker as a law-maker.
Additionally, several people have asked to see the map that I used to illustrate just how far outside of his district Charlie moved, which also illustrates how far he had to go from his real home to vote in the May 2010 primary. Well, I only have it in PDF format, which I cannot figure out how to post here, and I don't know how to convert it, so unless someone can teach me how, you will just have to email me and ask for it.
Charlie is now doubtless going to have to hire a criminal defense attorney, and this will lead to a huge distraction from his race for Secretary of State. Also, the Town of Fishers is investigating the repercussions on its official actions.
Much as Charlie and the Republican Party would love for this to be "no big deal" and go away, it just is NOT going away, but seems to get more and more serious every day. I personally have spoken to many Republicans who will vote Democratic or Libertarian in order to show their distaste for Charlie's actions. Good for them. We don't need a law-breaker as a law-maker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)